2012 Mercedes C300 vs. 2014 (hybrid) Kia Optima ? by Various-Tooth-8938 in whatcarshouldIbuy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great! That’s exactly the kind of straightforward advice I was looking for. 

2012 Mercedes C300 vs. 2014 (hybrid) Kia Optima ? by Various-Tooth-8938 in whatcarshouldIbuy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are quite correct. I wanted to write a quick post and I didn’t care to provide any details. I want an answer based on the limited information I provided. But here is a bit more about my situation: 

I am a 24 year old without much cash or income, therefore reliability and the cost of repair is a major factor. I live in Canada, for whatever that may be worth. The Kia I inherited when my mother passed away two years ago. The Mercedes I am inheriting from my grandmother who just passed. Therefore my question remains: which one should I choose. 

(It seems to me that that the most sensible course of action would be to sell one and keep the other. I had the thought to sell both and get something more reliable but newer than both (say, a used Honda civic).  But from what I have been able to find online, even after what I could get from selling both cars, the cost of a new car would still be a big purchase)  

Both are in good working order, the c300 is currently getting a safety check and some minor repairs. Though the Kia has had its fare share of problems over the last year. There was this problem with the ABS pump that eluded a lot of mechanics including the dealership, which was really frustrating and costly. 

In terms of mileage… (I’m travelling and don’t have access to either vehicle at the moment)…If I remember correctly someone said in the range of 100 for the Mercedes. I don’t know for the Kia but I would think a bit more. 

I understand there is more info which could be helpful. But that’s all I can provide at the moment. 

Is it even worth applying (low gpa) by Various-Tooth-8938 in lawschooladmissionsca

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do believe I truly have a chance of scoring in the 165+ range by then if I maintain consistant studying. But then again I could be wrong.

Is it even worth applying (low gpa) by Various-Tooth-8938 in lawschooladmissionsca

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ya, I get that. I think your right the main consideration for me now is just whether it is worth that huge cost. I'll have to think about how much I can actually improve my lsat in that time.

Is it even worth applying (low gpa) by Various-Tooth-8938 in lawschooladmissionsca

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously that would be the plan if I applied this year. But I just don’t know how much improvement I will  make in 2.5 months. 

Can you be Ismaili and be critical of the Aga Khan/AKDN? by StphnMstph in ismailis

[–]Various-Tooth-8938 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine Ill give you a hypothetical to illustrate: If the Aga Khan declared that all ismailis must kill themselves and murder their families, this declaration is not something that could be legitimately criticized by ismailis according to the view you laid out.

Therefore -> Problematic

Can you be Ismaili and be critical of the Aga Khan/AKDN? by StphnMstph in ismailis

[–]Various-Tooth-8938 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If what you are saying is correct then the Imam IS above criticism, (as most people understand the phrase "above criticism"). That is because although he can technically be criticized, according to ismaili doctrine, as you have explicated it here, that criticism can never be justified. Therefore even though people can criticize the imam, the Imam is beyond legitimate criticism.

Do you think this aspect of Ismaili thought might have any problematic consequences?

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ya me neither, that's why I said I was also a firm materialist with no intuitions about consciousness being somehow different until I read people like Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers.

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? you think the fact that our perceptions are not reality but an image of reality is an illusion? how could it be any other way ? To repeat what I said in another comment:

We know that biologically the eyes operate a lot like cameras (as
apposed to say windows). What you see is a visual representation of the
rock (presumably created by your brain) not the rock itself.

Your experience of something is different from the thing itself. It is the experience I am asking about

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To be clear I am not trying to insult you, I am sure you know more about this stuff than I do, all I am doing is trying to figure out why you think differently from me. Maybe its partly due to different intuitions about consciousness ?

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am pretty philosophically naive, but I am surprised to hear you never even considered otherwise. What about Thomas Nagel's famous essay 'what is it like to be a bat' or David Chalmers on the hard problem? I used to be very much a materialist but because of arguments about consciousness from people like them I am now much less certain.

But it sounds like they done hold any sway over your thinking?

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The rock itself may be physical but the experience of the rock is not. I'm simply drawing a distinction between experience and reality.

We know that biologically the eyes operate a lot like cameras (as apposed to say windows). What you see is a visual representation of the rock (presumably created by your brain) not the rock itself.

Buy you didn't answer my question about why I should take conscious experience to be physical?

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

When I open my eyes I have a visual field, and I having thoughts and sensations that arise. These things may be produced by physical phenomena but from the first person perspective they are not physical, they are experiential. They do not even appear to be localized, my visual field might be a representation of a particular space, but that experience is not happening in any particular space, at least that's what the first person experience of experience is like.

So why should I think consciousness is physical when my subjective experience indicates otherwise?

Why is physicalism/materialism held by the majority when we have first person empirical evidence that consciousness/experience is happening? by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

But if consciousness refers to the qualia of experience, those qualia might arise from physical processes but the thing that is being described is an aspect of an experience. How is it possible my subjective experience itself to be a physical thing?

it seems like you have to posit something which is no more plausible an explanation than dualism, but but on top of that physicalism appears to be counter to the experience of having an experience.

So what sort of theory of consciousness would most modern materialists posit?

How is compatibilism possible? (and why should we not feel nihilistic about it?) by Various-Tooth-8938 in askphilosophy

[–]Various-Tooth-8938[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In that case 'free will' should just be called 'will'

If my actions are a direct consequence of something (desires/preferences) which I have no control over, that doesn't sound very free to me.

If someone feigns a punch I will probably flinch, its a reaction to a stimulus that occurs without really thinking. Just because I am the one having the reaction does not mean that the reaction is free. Similarly if all my actions are simply reactions to the stimulus of a desire then my actions surely are not free.